Allowed¶15

Pooja Kuldeep Tonde v. Kuldeep Sanjay Tonde

Bombay HC6 Feb 2025CA/1273/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; restoration of Misc. Civil Application; conditional order dismissal for want of steps against respondent; 159 days delay; compromise talks between husband and wife failed; no notice required where none served before dismissal; Bombay High Court Aurangabad Bench; Kishore C. Sant, J.; 6 February 2025; Civil Application 1273/2025 in MCA 94/2024; Pooja Kuldeep Tonde v. Kuldeep Sanjay Tonde.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 159 days in filing the restoration application condoned; Civil Application No. 1273 of 2025 allowed and disposed of; Office directed to restore Misc. Civil Application No. 94 of 2024 to its original position; fresh notice to the Respondents, returnable on 20th March 2025. ¶15

Pooja Kuldeep Tonde Vs Kuldeep Sanjay Tonde — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 159 days in filing the application for restoration of the Misc. Civil Application (dismissed by conditional order dated 19th July 2024) ought to be condoned and the application restored.

¶14

Court's answer

Since no notice was served on the Respondent before the dismissal order, no notice is required in the restoration application.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

The delay of 159 days is condoned; the Civil Application stands allowed and is disposed of by condoning delay.

¶15

Key takeaways

The Office is directed to restore the Misc. Civil Application to its original position, with fresh notice to issue to the Respondents returnable on 20th March 2025.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Application No. 1273 of 2025 in Misc. Civil Application No. 94 of 2024 (Pooja Kuldeep Tonde v. Kuldeep Sanjay Tonde), High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, decided by Kishore C. Sant, J. on 6th February 2025. The Misc. Civil Application had been dismissed by a conditional order dated 19th July 2024, directing the applicant to take steps against the Respondent within four weeks, failing which the petition was to stand dismissed without reference to the Court. The applicant sought restoration, explaining a delay of 159 days on the ground that the parties, being husband and wife, were engaged in compromise talks which ultimately failed, and that she learnt of the dismissal only upon inquiry with her lawyer. Holding that, since no notice had been served on the Respondent before the dismissal order, no notice was required in the restoration application, the Court condoned the delay, allowed and disposed of the Civil Application, and directed the Office to restore the Misc. Civil Application to its original position, with fresh notice to the Respondents returnable on 20th March 2025.

Pooja Kuldeep Tonde v. Kuldeep Sanjay Tonde

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pooja Kuldeep Tonde v. Kuldeep Sanjay Tonde

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narendra Vishwanath Jadhav Vs Ms Challani Ginning and Pressing Factory through Its Partner and Another

Narendra Vishwanath Jadhav Vs M/S Challani Ginning and Pressing Factory through Its Partner and Another

Illuminati Education Forum through Its Director Vs the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner II

Vilas Baliram Koli Vs Kadu Lahanu Koli Since Deceased through Lrs Bhaulal Kadu Koli and Others

Vijay Vitthal Pund and Another Vs Devichand Hiralal Gandhi Dead Thr Lrs Gulabbai Devichand Gandhi Dead and Others

The General Manager (Adm.) Maharashtra State Co. Op Cotrol Growers Marketing Federation Ltd. and Ors. Vs Aminabi Shaikh Kadar and Ors.